The original meaning of sane is "physically healthy". Its usual modern meaning is "mentally healthy". You're using it to mean "reasonable".
At which exact point is language prohibited from evolving, and why it super coincidentally the exact years you learnt it?
> At which exact point is language prohibited from evolving
Never?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_change
Yes, that was my point.
And here it is, evolving before your eyes: we're killing off the maladaptive mutant which was "opt-in by default". That's the evolution that is happening here.
That would not be evolution, that would be an attempt at creationism. There is no evolution police, and never will be.
Selection pressure is the evolution police.
It would be fair to compare it to selective breeding, rather than natural selection. The flip side of rejecting usage is promoting neologisms. We can do both things deliberately, I see no rule saying that language is only allowed to evolve naturally. A reasonable criticism would be that trying to change it on purpose makes for a lot of unnecessary fuss, but we can be moderate about it.
Diluting the distinction between opt-in and opt-out is gaslighting, not "evolution."
That seems like an ungenerous and frankly somewhat hysterical take.
By default, you are opted in. Perfectly clear.
The purpose of language is communication, not validating your politics.
> By default, you are opted in. Perfectly clear.
That's called opt-out. You're doing exactly what I described: gaslighting people into believing that opt-in and opt-out are synonymous, rendering the entire concept meaningless. The audacity of you labeling people as "political" while resorting to such Orwellian manipulation is astounding. How can you lecture others about the purpose of languages with a straight face when you're redefining terms to make it impossible for people to express a concept?
These are examples of what "opt-in by default" actually means. It means having the user manually consent to something every time, the polar opposite your definition.
- https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/06/report-new-apple-int...
- https://github.com/rom1504/img2dataset/issues/293
It's also just pure laziness to label me as "hysterical" when PR departments of companies like Google have, like you, misused the terms opt-out and opt-in in deceptive ways.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37314981
I completely agree with you from a correctness standpoint, ...
> Diluting the distinction between opt-in and opt-out is gaslighting
> That seems like an ungenerous and frankly somewhat hysterical take.
... however, this comment was a reasonable response.
Projective framing demonstrates your own lack of concern for accuracy, clarity or conviviality, that is 180 degrees at odds with the point you are making and the site you are making it on.
I can somehow understand the parent. If you control the language, you control the discourse. This is like the famous "I'm appalled at the negativity here on HN" comment threads when doing product launches etc. Or using euphemisms to avoid calling spade a spade.[0] People are fed up with these tricks, hence these emotional reactions.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26346688